V. I. Lenin

Notes of a Publicist

3. The Terms of Unity and Sectarian Diplomacy

Toproceed. The editorial article ofGoloson the
results of the plenum compels us to touch on the question of the deletion
of the words liquidationism and otzovism from the resolution. This
editorial article (in No. 19–20, p. 18) declares with an audacity unusual
and unprecedented (except among our Golosists) that the term “liquidator”
is as elastic as india-rubber, that it has “engendered all kinds of
misunderstandings” (sic!!), etc., and for this reason “the Central
Committee decided to delete this term from the resolution”.

Whatcan we call this version of the Central Committee’s decisions on
the deletion of the term when the editors ofGoloscannot but know
that it is contrary to the truth? What calculation was in the minds of
these editors, two of whom were at the plenum and know the “history” of
the deletion of the term? Did they really count on not being exposed?

Themajority of the commission which drew up the resolution approved
the retention of the term. Of the two Mensheviks in the commission, one
(Martov) voted for its deletion, theother(who repeatedly
inclined towards Plekhanov’s position) wasagainst. At the plenum
the following statement was put forward by all the nationals (2 Poles+2
Bundists+1 Lett) and Trotsky.

“Recognisingthat it would be desirable intrinsically to apply the
   term ‘liquidationism’ to the trend which, as indicated in the
   resolution, has to be combated, yet taking into account the statement of
   the Menshevik comrades thatthey too consider it necessary to combat
   this trendbut that the use of such a term in the resolution is of
   a factional character directed against them, the Mensheviks—we, in the
   interests of eliminating all unnecessary hindrances to the unification
   of the Party, propose that this term be dropped from the resolution.”

“Recognisingthat it would be desirable intrinsically to apply the
   term ‘liquidationism’ to the trend which, as indicated in the
   resolution, has to be combated, yet taking into account the statement of
   the Menshevik comrades thatthey too consider it necessary to combat
   this trendbut that the use of such a term in the resolution is of
   a factional character directed against them, the Mensheviks—we, in the
   interests of eliminating all unnecessary hindrances to the unification
   of the Party, propose that this term be dropped from the resolution.”

Thus,the majority of the Central Committee and, more over, all the
non-factional elements, state in writing that the word liquidationism is
intrinsically correct and that liquidationism must be combated, yet the
editorial board ofGolosexplains that the term was deleted as
being intrinsically unsuitable!!

Themajority of the Central Committee and, moreover, all the
non-factional elements declare in writing that they agree to the deletion
of the term, yielding to the insistence of the Mensheviks (more correctly:
yielding to an ultimatum, for the Mensheviks declared that the resolution
would not be unanimous otherwise) in view of their promise to “combat
this trend”. And yet the editors ofGoloswrite: the
resolution gave an “unequivocal reply to the question of the so-called
struggle against liquidationism” (page 18, ibid.)!!

Atthe plenum they promise to reform, pleading: do not employ “a term
which is directed againstus”, for from now on we ourselves are
going to combat this trend—yet in the first issue ofGolosafter
the plenum they declare that the fight against liquidationism is only a
“so-called” fight.

Clearly,we have here, on the part of the Golosists, a complete and
definite turn to liquidationism, a turn which becomes comprehensible if we
take a look at what took place after the plenum as at something integral,
connected by cause and effect—particularly the utterances ofNasha
Zarya,Vozrozhdeniyeand gentlemen like Mikhail, Yuri, Roman
and Co. Of this we shall speak further on, where it will be our task to
demonstrate the utter superficiality of the view taken by Trotsky, who is
prone to blame everything on the “violation of moral and political
obligations” (the Vienna resolution), whereas we are evidently confronted
not by an individual or group “violation of commitments”, not by a moral
or juridical act, but by apoliticalact, namely: the rallying of
the anti-Party legalists in Russia.

Forthe present we must dwell on another question, namely the question
of the causes and significance of the action of the plenum in deleting the
word liquidationism from the resolution. To explain it purely as a result
of the misguided zeal of conciliators like Trotsky, Yonov and Co. would be
incorrect. There is yet another factor here. The point is that a
considerable portion of the decisions of the plenum were passed not on the
usual principle of the minority submitting to the majority, but on the
principle of anagreementbetween the two factions, the Bolsheviks
and the Mensheviks, with the mediation of the nationals. This circumstance,
apparently, is what Comrade Yonov is hintingat inOtkliki Bundawhen he writes: “The comrades who are now
clinging to formalities know perfectly well how the last plenum would have
ended if it had taken a formal point of view.”

Inthis sentence, Comrade Yonov speaks in hints. Like Trotsky, he
considers such a mode of expressing his thoughts extremely “tactful”,
non-factional and specifically pro-Party. In point of fact, this is the
very method employed by sectarian diplomats which does nothing but harm to
the Party and the pro-Party cause. Such hints are lost to some, pique the
sectarian curiosity of others, and set off more scandalmongering and
back-biting. Hence Yonov’s hints must be deciphered. If he is not referring
here to the plenum seeking an agreement (not merely a majority decision) on
a number of questions we shall, ask him to express himself more explicitly
and not put ideas into the heads of the gossips abroad.

If,however, Yonov is referring here to the agreement between the
factions at the plenum, his criticism of “the comrades who cling to
formalities” vividly shows us yet one more trait of those alleged
conciliators who, in effect, are secretly helping the liquidators.

Anumber of unanimous resolutions were adopted at the plenum byagreementbetween the factions. Why was this necessary? Because
actually the relations between the factions were tantamount to a split and,
as is always and inevitably the case in any split, the discipline of the
whole body (in this instance the Party) is sacrificed to the discipline of
the part (in the present instance the faction).

Partyconditions in Russia being what they are there was no other way
to unity than through an agreement between the factions (whether all the,
factions, or the chief ones, whether parts of factions or whole ones, is
another question). Hence, the necessity of a compromise, i.e., concessions
on certain points which were not recognised by the majority but were
demanded by the minority. One of these concessions was the deletion of the
word liquidationism from the resolution. A particularly conspicuous sign of
the compromise character of the resolutions of the plenum was the
Bolsheviks’conditionalsurrender of theirfactionalproperty tothirdpersons. One section of the Party conditionallyhands over its property to third persons (from the international
Social-Democratic movement) who will have to decide whether this money
should be given to the Central Committee or returned to the faction. The
character of this contract, which would be quite extraordinary and even
impossible in a normal, intact Party, shows clearly on whatconditionsthe Bolsheviks accepted the agreement. The declaration
of the Bolsheviks printed in the Central Organ No. 11, says clearly that
the main ideological and political condition was the passing of the
resolution “condemning liquidationism and otzovism and, recognising the
fight against these trends to be an inalienable element of the political
line of the Party”, that one of the guarantees for the implementation of
this line was the composition of the Central Organ, and that a continuation
of their factional organ and factional policy by the Mensheviks would give
the Bolsheviks tile right to “demand their money back from the
trustee”. The Central Committeeacceptedthese conditions, making
direct reference to this declaration of the Bolsheviks in the resolution on
the factional centres.

Thequestion is, are these conditions to be kept or not? Are these
conditions formal or not? Comrade Yonov, speaking disdainfully of
“formalities” has not understood the most elementary distinction between
the agreement as the basis of a contract (=the condition that the
Bolsheviks should hand over their money, a condition endorsed by the
unanimous resolution of the Central Committee on factional centres) and the
observance of the formal conditions of the contract as the basis for the
preservation of unity.

IfComrade Yonov, now, after the unanimous resolution of the Central
Committee on the factional centres, contemptuously dismisses
“formalities” he is dismissing thewholeresolution of the
Central Committee on the factional centres. Comrade Yonov’s sophistry
amounts to the following:

the aggregate decisions of the Central Committee were reached not only
through the passing of resolutions by a majority vote but also through an
agreement ,between the war ring trends on certain highly important
questions—consequently,henceforthtoo these decisions are not
formally binding and the minority has the right to demand an agreement!Sincethere is an element of compromise in the decisionsof the Central Committee these decisions canalwaysbe violated
because an agreement is a voluntary affair!

Isnot such sophistry a thinly veiled defence of the liquidators?

Butwhile Yonov’s sophistries are nothing but ludicrous the endeavour
of the Central Committee (the plenum) to make the maximum possible
concessions was psychologically and politically right and proper. The
Mensheviks and otzovists joined in furious attacks on the Bolshevik Centre,
against which they levelled the most savage accusations. Not disagreements
in principle, but the “malice” of the Bolshevik Centre—that is what
estranges us from the Party above all and before all, said both the
Mensheviks and the

			      otzovists.[1]

Thisis a very important point which must be cleared up if we are to
understand why our unity crisis is taking such a course and no other. Therewere nochampions of liquidationism and otzovism in principle;
neither the Mensheviks nor the Vperyodistsventuredto take such a
position. Here the effect was seen of a feature of the modern “critics”
of Marxism and the critics of genuine Marxist tactics, one already
commented on in our literature long ago (and frequently commented on in the
international literature against the opportunists), viz., irresolution,
unprincipledness, concealment of the “new” policy, the screening of the
consistent representatives of liquidationists and otzovists. We are not
liquidators, that is a factional term—cried the Mensheviks. We are not
otzovists, that is a factional exaggeration—echoed the Vperyodists. And
thousands of accusations on all manner of occasions, including that of
so-called “criminal actions” (read: expropriations), were hurled against
the Bolshevik Centrewith the aimof drawing a veil over
differences of political principle and of pushing them into the background.

Tothis the Bolsheviks replied: very well, gentlemen, let the Central
Committee examineallyour accusationsand pronounce “judgement and sentence” on them. There are five national
Social-Democrats at the plenum—any decision at all depends on them and a
unanimous one even more so. Let them be the “judges” to examine your
(i.e., Menshevik and Vperyodist) accusations and satisfy your claims
against the Bolshevik Centre. The Bolsheviks went further. They agreed to
the maximum compromises in the resolutions demanded by the Mensheviks and
Vperyodists.

Andso the maximum concessions were made in the resolutions on the
state of affairs in the Party and on the conference, all the
“accusations” were gone into andall claims against the Bolshevik
Centre were satisfiedon the basis of a decision byall five
national Social-Democrats.

Thiswas the only way to deprive the opponents of the Party line, i.e.,
the anti-liquidationist line, ofevery opportunity to prevaricate, of
every opportunity to evade the principles of the question. And they
were deprived of this opportunity.

Ifnow Axelrod and Martov and Co. in the “Necessary Supplement”, and
Alexinsky and Co. in the leaflet of the Vperyodists again try to drag out
accusations against the Bolshevik Centre, tittle-tattle, slander, lies and
insinuations—then these gentlemen condemn themselves. That the plenumunanimouslyheardalltheir accusations, rejectedallof them by its resolution and put it on record that they were
rejected is impossible for anyone to deny, whether these or any other
knights of discord. That being so it should now be clear to one and all
that the people who are once more beginning a squabble (Axelrod, Martov,
Alexinsky and Co.) are simply political blackmailers who want to sidetrack
questions of principle by scandalmongering. And we shall not treat them as
anything else but political blackmailers. We are not going to concern
ourselves with any question other than the implementation by the Party of
its anti-liquidationist and anti-otzovist policy, leaving Axelrod, Martov
and Alexinsky to wallow in the mire as much as they like.

Thecompromises and concessions of the Bolsheviks, their assent to
resolutions which in many respects were not forceful enough, were necessary
for a clear-cut demarcation based on principle. By meetingallthe
claims of the Mensheviksand otzovists that were endorsed by a majority of the

			      nationals,[2]the Bolsheviks ensured that the solo issue for all Social-Democrats
irrespective of trend, except the professional blackmailers, became the
implementation of the Party’s anti-liquidationist and anti-otzovist
policy. Under the resolution which depended on the national
Social-Democrats, access to Party work, to taking part in the
implementation of this policy, was not barred to anyone, to any single
member of the Party; no obstacles to its implementation, no extraneous
hindrances remained. So if the liquidators now raise their heads again,
more conspicuously than ever, itprovesthat their extraneous
obstacles were a fiction, a blind, scandalmongering dodge, a contrivance of
sectarian intriguers and nothing more.

Thatis why the process of demarcation and division began in real
earnest only after the plenum. This division is taking place solely over a
most important question of principle—that of the liquidation of our
Party. Those “conciliators” who were shocked, aggrieved and astonished
because this process of demarcation began after the plenum, only proved by
their astonishment that they were under the spell of sectarian diplomacy. A
sectarian diplomat might think that a conditional agreement with Martov and
Martynov, Maximov and the second

Vperyodist{4}means the end of all demarcation, for a divergence of
principle is a minor matter to such a diplomat. Conversely, people who
attach primary importance to the fundamental question of liquidationism and
otzovism see nothing surprising in the fact that a demarcation purely on
the basis of principle had to beginaftersatisfyingallthe claims of Martov, Maximov and Co.,afterthe maximum
concessions to them on questions of organisation, etc.

Whathas been taking place in the Party since the plenum is not the
collapse of Party unity, but the beginning of the union of all those who
are really capable and desirous of working in the Party and in the Party
spirit, the beginningof the purging of a real Party bloc of Bolsheviks, pro-Party Mensheviks,
nationals and non-factional Social-Democrats from renegades hostile to the
Party, from semi-liberals and

			   semi-anarchists.[3]

[1]Compare Yonov’s comment: “No less insistent was Comrade Martov in
assuring the plenum that the ‘dangerous deviations’ to the Right were an
invention of the spiteful Bolsheviks, that the Party bad only one enemy and
that was the Bolshevik Centre with its factional ruling of the roost”
(p. 22 of the article quoted).  —Lenin

[2]Remember that those with the right to vote at the plenum were
4 Mensheviks, 4 Bolsheviks, 1 Vperyodist, 1 Lett, 2 Bundists and 2 Poles;
i.e., the Bolsheviks did not have a majority over the Mensheviks and the
Vperyodists even with the Poles and the Lett; the Bundists, decided.  —Lenin

[3]By the way. The following fact may serve to characterise the bloc of
the Golosists and Vperyodists against the Bolsheviks (a bloc which exactly
resembles the bloc of the Jaures-ists and Hervé-ists against the
Guesde-ists). In his “Necessary Supplement” Martov jeers at Plekhanov for
attaching any importance to the membership of the commission on the
school. Martov is playing the hypocrite. At the plenum, this same Martov
with all the Mensheviks and with Maximov, and assisted by Trotsky,fought for a resolutionthat would recognise the otzovist school
in X.—as a Party school with which the Central Committee shouldmake
an agreement!  It was only with difficulty that we managed to defeat
this anti-Party bloc.

Ofcourse if the Golosists and Vperyodists enter into the Party they
have everyrightto enter into blocs. But it is not a question of
right but of the principle underlying the bloc. This is anunprincipled
blocagainst Party and principle.  —Lenin

{4}TheSecond Vperyodist—V. L. Shantser (Marat).